Okay, then I have a question. In what year did the Church disappear and become invisible?

We know it existed. It got itself organized and then spread out, had a structure and ways to solve internal disagreements.

When did it change from actually existing physically to simply a shared idea? When was that exactly?

Thanks

You haven't read my responses so far or you wouldn't be asking silly questions.I've never once said that the visible aspect of church was insignificant or didn't exist.

No, you just believe that the visible Church is merely a byproduct of individuals living out their individualized faiths in Christ, while we believe that the visible Church, no less than the invisible, is the very means by which Christ intends for us to work out our salvation: in community.

Christianity or the Church?, by Saint Ilarion (Troitsky), the Holy New Martyr. This is a modern classic about the essential interrelatedness between Christianity and the Church. His main premise: "Without the Church there is no Christianity."

excerpts:

The Church was designed to reflect the perfect unity of the Three-One God

Here is what Saint Cyril of Alexandria writes: "Christ, having taken as an example and image of that indivisible love, accord and unity which is conceivable only in unanimity, the unity of essence which the Father has with Him and which He, in turn, has with His Father, desires that we too should unite with each other; evidently in the same way as the consubstantial, Holy Trinity is united so that the whole body of the Church is conceived of as one, ascending in Christ through the fusion and union of two people into the composition of the new perfect whole. The image of Divine unity and the consubstantial nature of the Holy Trinity as a most perfect interpenetration must be reflected in the unity of the believers who are of one heart and mind." Saint Cyril also points out "the natural unity by which we are all bound together, and all of us to God, cannot exist without bodily unity."

All the earthly works of Christ, therefore, must not be thought of as teaching alone. Christ did not come to earth to announce some novel theoretical propositions to mankind. No! He came in order to create a completely new life for mankind, that is, the Church. Christ Himself said that He would build the Church (cf. Matt. 16:18).

This new human community, according to the conception of the Creator Himself, differs vitally from all other associations of people into various societies. Christ Himself often referred to His Church as the Kingdom of God and said that this Kingdom is not of the world, that is, its nature is not of the world, not temporal; it is not comparable with earthly kingdoms (cf. John 14:27; 15:19; 17:14-16; 18:36).

The idea of the Church as a new, perfect community as distinct from a community of the state organization is profoundly and beautifully expressed in the kontakion for the feast of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, when the Church recalls and celebrates its beginning. "When the Most High came down and confused the tongues, He divided the nations, but when He distributed the tongues of fire, He called all into unity. Therefore, with one accord we glorify the All-holy Spirit." Here the creation of the Church is placed into opposition to the Tower of Babel and the "confusing of tongues," at which time God, the Most High, came down, confused the tongues and divided the nations.

In our times we hear many various answers such as: "To be a Christian means to recognize Christ's teaching, to try to fulfill His commandments." This, of course, is the best of such answers. The first Christians, however, answered the question in a completely different way. From the very first pages of its history, Christianity appears before us in the form of a harmonious and unanimous community. Outside of this community there were no Christians. To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14). Each new believer was like a branch grafted to the tree of Church life.

To be Christian means to belong to the Church

"On the Unity of the Catholic Church," we read the famous words, "He who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God as his Father." Saint Cyprian completely refuses the name "Christian" to all those who stand outside the Church,

Only one who has come to believe in the Church, who is guided by the concept of the Church in the appraisal of the phenomena of life and the direction of his personal life, one who has felt a Church life within himself, he and only he is on the correct path. Much that earlier seemed indefinite and vague will become obvious and clear. It is especially precious that in times of general vacillation, of wandering from side to side, from the right to the left and from the left to the right, every Church-conscious person feels himself standing on a steadfast, centuries-old rock; how firm it feels under his feet.

The Spirit of God lives in the Church. This is not a dry and dogmatic thesis, preserved only through respect for what is old. No, this is truth; truth which can be experienced and known by everyone who has been penetrated by Church consciousness. This Grace-filled Church life cannot be the subject of dry scholastic research, for it is accessible for study only through experience. Human language is capable of speaking only vaguely and unclearly about this Grace-filled life.

Saint Hilary of Poitiers spoke correctly when he said, "This is the characteristic virtue of the Church - that it becomes comprehensible when you adopt it."

Only he who has Church life knows about Church life, he requires no proofs; but for one who does not have it, it is something which cannot be proved.

For a member of the Church the object of all his life must be constantly to unite more and more with the life of the Church, and, at the same time, preach to others about the Church, not substituting it with Christianity, not substituting life with dry and abstract teaching.

No, you just believe that the visible Church is merely a byproduct of individuals living out their individualized faiths in Christ, while we believe that the visible Church, no less than the invisible, is the very means by which Christ intends for us to work out our salvation: in community.

It's impossible to love your neighbor if you have no neighbor.

What i actually did was compare its importance to faith and works. I wouldn't have though you believe your deeds to be merely a byproduct of your faith Peter.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

Read the Acts passage again. It's clear that one could proclaim all day "I am saved" but of no effect outside the Church.

Again from St Ilarion quoted before:

Here is a more distinctive example, an illustration of precisely this joining to the Church. The persecutor Saul who had breathed threatening and murderous desires against the Lord's disciples, underwent a miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, and became a follower of Christ. Here before us is a special revelation of God to man. In Damascus, the Lord sent Ananias to baptize Saul. Saul then travelled to Jerusalem in order to join himself to the disciples there. After Barnabas had informed the Apostles about him, "he abode as one among them." Thus, even the future great Apostle whom, in the vision of Ananias, the Lord calls a chosen instrument (Acts 9:15), immediately after conversion became united with the Church which was a visible community. Here is graphic evidence that the Lord does not want to know His servants outside of the Church.

It is easy to understand why the holy Apostle Paul speaks so persistently about the Church in his epistles: he is not creating a teaching about the Church, for during his very conversion Paul knew precisely this Church and not something else, for he recalls subsequently: "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jew's religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13). Saul did not persecute followers of some kind of teaching, but, specifically, the Church, as a defined value, perceivable even to "outsiders."

According to the witness of the compiler of the Acts, the first Christian community was the almost complete realization of this concept of the Church. The company of the faithful, we read in the Acts of the Apostles were "of one heart and of one soul" (Acts 4:32). It is remarkable that during the fourth century, while the dogma concerning the Holy Trinity was being explained, certain of the holy fathers used the analogy of the early Christians to describe the unity of the Holy Trinity.

How sharply the first Christian community was defined is beautifully demonstrated in one verse from Acts which has somehow been passed over unnoticed. "And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them" (Acts 5:13).

Thus, on the one hand, conversion to Christianity is conceived of as uniting with the Church, and on the other hand, "none of those who were not of their number dared join them." Is it not clear, then, that from the very beginning when the direct disciples of Christ were still alive, Christianity was a visible society - the Church, because it was not then a theory; it was life itself.

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

Read the Acts passage again. It's clear that one could proclaim all day "I am saved" but of no effect outside the Church.

Fotina, there is no such thing as outside the church. The moment you are saved you are the church.

Quote

Again from St Ilarion quoted before:

Here is a more distinctive example, an illustration of precisely this joining to the Church. The persecutor Saul who had breathed threatening and murderous desires against the Lord's disciples, underwent a miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, and became a follower of Christ. Here before us is a special revelation of God to man. In Damascus, the Lord sent Ananias to baptize Saul. Saul then travelled to Jerusalem in order to join himself to the disciples there. After Barnabas had informed the Apostles about him, "he abode as one among them." Thus, even the future great Apostle whom, in the vision of Ananias, the Lord calls a chosen instrument (Acts 9:15), immediately after conversion became united with the Church which was a visible community. Here is graphic evidence that the Lord does not want to know His servants outside of the Church.

Yep, immediately after conversion he went to gather. That's precicely what i was saying, thanks.

Quote

It is easy to understand why the holy Apostle Paul speaks so persistently about the Church in his epistles: he is not creating a teaching about the Church, for during his very conversion Paul knew precisely this Church and not something else, for he recalls subsequently: "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jew's religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13). Saul did not persecute followers of some kind of teaching, but, specifically, the Church, as a defined value, perceivable even to "outsiders."

The followers/disciples are the church.

Quote

According to the witness of the compiler of the Acts, the first Christian community was the almost complete realization of this concept of the Church. The company of the faithful, we read in the Acts of the Apostles were "of one heart and of one soul" (Acts 4:32). It is remarkable that during the fourth century, while the dogma concerning the Holy Trinity was being explained, certain of the holy fathers used the analogy of the early Christians to describe the unity of the Holy Trinity.

How sharply the first Christian community was defined is beautifully demonstrated in one verse from Acts which has somehow been passed over unnoticed. "And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them" (Acts 5:13).

Thus, on the one hand, conversion to Christianity is conceived of as uniting with the Church, and on the other hand, "none of those who were not of their number dared join them." Is it not clear, then, that from the very beginning when the direct disciples of Christ were still alive, Christianity was a visible society - the Church, because it was not then a theory; it was life itself.

Christianity is a visible society i would agree.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits.

You do realize I didn't ask you.

Actually, you just showed me that you DO define saved. How do you know, though, that your definition is a complete, biblical understanding of salvation? How do we know if you won't tell us?

Well if we can cut to the chase i suppose we're back to Vol's question suggesting none of us can know if we truly believe or not. I would say that to answer the question is that what we truly believe will be evidenced by the outworking of our faith.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits.

You do realize I didn't ask you.

Actually, you just showed me that you DO define saved. How do you know, though, that your definition is a complete, biblical understanding of salvation? How do we know if you won't tell us?

Well if we can cut to the chase i suppose we're back to Vol's question suggesting none of us can know if we truly believe or not. I would say that to answer the question is that what we truly believe will be evidenced by the outworking of our faith.

Nope, even atheists can do good works. You won't ever know if your works were done truly for the love of God and neighbor or out of pride (except in that relative sense I was talking about).

Working on your other post.

Logged

Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

It's as important as works is to faith. We are saved by faith through grace and the evidence of that faith will be works, or the faith is dead. So we are saved through Christ and the outworking of that salvation is done through a flesh and blood body. The emphasis being though, that the church isn't the entry point for salvation because faith is the entry point for salvation.

I don't draw as sharp a distinction as you do. Faith is faithfulness. There is no magic moment during which one is a true believer and yet not following Christ, which means obeying the commandments you can according to the grace you've been given at the time. To not take advantage of the visible church when it is available is to fail to keep the faith. As such, whatever invisible components there are peripheral and in response to human frailties it would seem.

Quote from: FountainPen

Sorry, i possibly should have said "...merely an act" but i think you know what i am getting at. It's not something where we turn up and go through the motions just to check the church attendance box (i'm not suggesting you or anyone here is doing that).Worship is about a 'grafted-in' life saved from eternal death and the overflow of devotion due to God.

Indeed, and normally grace will lead a soul to being grafted in by joining a visible body. In cases where this is not possible, God has other means of uniting one to Himself but this is the exception not the rule just like someone who perseveres to the end without a life dwelling in the Scriptures.

Quote from: FountainPen

So potentially then and unbeknown to them at this time, millions of Protestants and Roman Catholics are already part of the one Church as she sees it?

That would seem to be the idea. It's something I still have difficulties with myself to be honest. I do believe though that since God is outside time, He can draw us and keep us in Him in ways we can't understand and we need to recognize that there comes a point where arguing about the ordo salutis breaks down do the limitations of human language. Most Orthodox believe prayer can somehow effect the past so perhaps baptism does as well? Seems kind of plausible to me.

Then again, I might be transcending "Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism" here and just talking out of my own hat.

Quote from: FountainPen

No i don't accept that answer because symbolic baptism carries much less weight than salvific baptism which is why i asked.

It really shouldn't imo. If baptism is only a symbol, it's still a declaration before the people of God and the entire world that one has died with Christ to rise with Him. To knowingly baptist someone who did not believe would be to make a mockery of God.

Again, given that old relative knowledge I keep harping on, we have to do what we can.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 12:05:56 PM by Volnutt »

Logged

Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

ByGracethroughFaith and FountainPen--First, I do commend you for taking the Word of God seriously for we are called to do so. The core question is indeed what is the highest authority for understanding the Word of God. The Holy Scriptures themselves are not the highest authority because they are written words that are not accompanied by explanations and definitions--they are understood by the reader according to his own filters and abilities. Thus, sola scriptura ends up being "I believe in what I believe" multiplied by the number of believers. Granted that there is congruence and the number of Holy Scriptures do not number in millions but, at least in the Protestant world, there seem to thousands of sects and thus Holy Scriptures. Even in any given sect, folks shop around for congregations and preachers with whom they agree. I think the problem here is an overemphasis on individuals over the Body of Christ. When trying to understand, the first thing is to pray for understanding, that is quite true. But, you just cannot stop there; one must defer to what the Body believed since 33 AD. It is true that there is a an order to interpretive authority: I will accord greater authority to those writers/interpreters of the salvific story and message of Christ and His Holy Apostles, that is, the early Church Fathers, whose writings and practice have been preserved in and by the Church--the visible one. My opinion must be the least authoritative, not the most authoritative. I must be guided by those who came before me (see Apostle Paul in particular) and those who have received special grace by virtue of their ordination. This does not make me a blind follower but an informed one.

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits.

You do realize I didn't ask you.

Actually, you just showed me that you DO define saved. How do you know, though, that your definition is a complete, biblical understanding of salvation? How do we know if you won't tell us?

Well if we can cut to the chase i suppose we're back to Vol's question suggesting none of us can know if we truly believe or not. I would say that to answer the question is that what we truly believe will be evidenced by the outworking of our faith.

Nope, even atheists can do good works. You won't ever know if your works were done truly for the love of God and neighbor or out of pride (except in that relative sense I was talking about).

Working on your other post.

Since we're talking about those who acton faith, i don't think Atheists are a good example as they would never have faith in Christ to act upon. Separately however, demons also believe and yes, humanists produce good deeds. The ultimate definition of a saved person would be one who has been sealed by the Spirit of God. That's not something you can see though so for those with an emphasis on salvation through the visible church, i doubt that would be an acceptable definition.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits.

You do realize I didn't ask you.

Actually, you just showed me that you DO define saved. How do you know, though, that your definition is a complete, biblical understanding of salvation? How do we know if you won't tell us?

Well if we can cut to the chase i suppose we're back to Vol's question suggesting none of us can know if we truly believe or not. I would say that to answer the question is that what we truly believe will be evidenced by the outworking of our faith.

OK. I don't see how that defines what it means to be saved. Is it possible that you may be thinking of salvation purely according to its juridical, "right legal standing before God" sense and that you may be missing how salvation, according to the Orthodox sense, entails also the entire process of theosis--entire sanctification, if you will? Before we take this conversation on salvation any further, we will probably want to define our terms so we are no longer talking past each other.

No i don't accept that answer because symbolic baptism carries much less weight than salvific baptism which is why i asked.

It really shouldn't imo. If baptism is only a symbol, it's still a declaration before the people of God and the entire world that one has died with Christ to rise with Him. To knowingly baptist someone who did not believe would be to make a mockery of God.

Again, given that old relative knowledge I keep harping on, we have to do what we can.

It really shouldn't but it does in the OC, which is why it's not the same at all. So my original question is still outstanding.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits.

You do realize I didn't ask you.

Actually, you just showed me that you DO define saved. How do you know, though, that your definition is a complete, biblical understanding of salvation? How do we know if you won't tell us?

Well if we can cut to the chase i suppose we're back to Vol's question suggesting none of us can know if we truly believe or not. I would say that to answer the question is that what we truly believe will be evidenced by the outworking of our faith.

Nope, even atheists can do good works. You won't ever know if your works were done truly for the love of God and neighbor or out of pride (except in that relative sense I was talking about).

Working on your other post.

Since we're talking about those who acton faith, i don't think Atheists are a good example as they would never have faith in Christ to act upon. Separately however, demons also believe and yes, humanists produce good deeds. The ultimate definition of a saved person would be one who has been sealed by the Spirit of God. That's not something you can see though so for those with an emphasis on salvation through the visible church, i doubt that would be an acceptable definition.

Sounds fine to me. One is never saved just by being in the visible church. Without the Spirit it's all just empty ritual. But for someone who is sealed by the Spirit, membership in the visible church will coincide with this. Working out your own salvation is not possible outside the company of believers (again, barring people who simply can't for some reason).

Logged

Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

No i don't accept that answer because symbolic baptism carries much less weight than salvific baptism which is why i asked.

It really shouldn't imo. If baptism is only a symbol, it's still a declaration before the people of God and the entire world that one has died with Christ to rise with Him. To knowingly baptist someone who did not believe would be to make a mockery of God.

Again, given that old relative knowledge I keep harping on, we have to do what we can.

It really shouldn't but it does in the OC, which is why it's not the same at all. So my original question is still outstanding.

No, I meant that to Protestants symbolic-only baptism should not be considered less weighty than salvivic baptism is to the Orthodox, to do otherwise would be to abuse the nature of a symbol.

Logged

Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

most protestants seem to have some err in understanding orthodox soteriology as well.. i actually spent 4 hours with a Calvinist repeating the same 6 lines over and over... Where protestants see the assurance of our salvation to be insurance in Orthodoxy its not some ticket that you hold onto to get into heaven. To the Orthodox it we have assurance of our salvation but not insurance its a continual process... so no orthodox will ever admit they ARE SAVED.

No i don't accept that answer because symbolic baptism carries much less weight than salvific baptism which is why i asked.

It really shouldn't imo. If baptism is only a symbol, it's still a declaration before the people of God and the entire world that one has died with Christ to rise with Him. To knowingly baptist someone who did not believe would be to make a mockery of God.

Again, given that old relative knowledge I keep harping on, we have to do what we can.

It really shouldn't but it does in the OC, which is why it's not the same at all. So my original question is still outstanding.

No, I meant that to Protestants symbolic-only baptism should not be considered less weighty than salvivic baptism is to the Orthodox, to do otherwise would be to abuse the nature of a symbol.

I wasn't meaning it didn't carry weight but that it doesn't change someone's eternal destination in the Protestant church like it does for Orthodoxy.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

No i don't accept that answer because symbolic baptism carries much less weight than salvific baptism which is why i asked.

It really shouldn't imo. If baptism is only a symbol, it's still a declaration before the people of God and the entire world that one has died with Christ to rise with Him. To knowingly baptist someone who did not believe would be to make a mockery of God.

Again, given that old relative knowledge I keep harping on, we have to do what we can.

It really shouldn't but it does in the OC, which is why it's not the same at all. So my original question is still outstanding.

No, I meant that to Protestants symbolic-only baptism should not be considered less weighty than salvivic baptism is to the Orthodox, to do otherwise would be to abuse the nature of a symbol.

I wasn't meaning it didn't carry weight but that it doesn't change someone's eternal destination in the Protestant church like it does for Orthodoxy.

So how does one legitimize the multiple references of baptism effecting eternal destination?

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

No i don't accept that answer because symbolic baptism carries much less weight than salvific baptism which is why i asked.

It really shouldn't imo. If baptism is only a symbol, it's still a declaration before the people of God and the entire world that one has died with Christ to rise with Him. To knowingly baptist someone who did not believe would be to make a mockery of God.

Again, given that old relative knowledge I keep harping on, we have to do what we can.

It really shouldn't but it does in the OC, which is why it's not the same at all. So my original question is still outstanding.

No, I meant that to Protestants symbolic-only baptism should not be considered less weighty than salvivic baptism is to the Orthodox, to do otherwise would be to abuse the nature of a symbol.

I wasn't meaning it didn't carry weight but that it doesn't change someone's eternal destination in the Protestant church like it does for Orthodoxy.

In most cases in my experience it does since if you're not baptized after a reasonable amount of time people tend to query your faith. And that's how it should be imo, again that tight relationship between faith and works.

Logged

Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

It has everything to do with the church - and whether it is visible or invisible. Salvation is personal.No one attains salvation by being a part of a certain or particular 'group'. Many would have us all believe this but it is not so. Salvation is personal. We then commune with other believers all of the time.. Anywhere and everywhere.. Members of the Body of Christ. 24 hr/day, 7 day a week church.

Saint Ilarion (Troitsky) quoted earlier points out:

Quote

To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14).

We don't gather in the visible church to be saved but becuase we are already saved.

How do you define saved?

I don't. The word defines it accurately enough but i daren't provide a source or i'll get accused of proof texting or firing bible bullits.

You do realize I didn't ask you.

Actually, you just showed me that you DO define saved. How do you know, though, that your definition is a complete, biblical understanding of salvation? How do we know if you won't tell us?

Well if we can cut to the chase i suppose we're back to Vol's question suggesting none of us can know if we truly believe or not. I would say that to answer the question is that what we truly believe will be evidenced by the outworking of our faith.

Nope, even atheists can do good works. You won't ever know if your works were done truly for the love of God and neighbor or out of pride (except in that relative sense I was talking about).

Working on your other post.

Since we're talking about those who acton faith, i don't think Atheists are a good example as they would never have faith in Christ to act upon. Separately however, demons also believe and yes, humanists produce good deeds. The ultimate definition of a saved person would be one who has been sealed by the Spirit of God. That's not something you can see though so for those with an emphasis on salvation through the visible church, i doubt that would be an acceptable definition.

yet we work out our salvation in visible ways...by partaking of the sacraments, for example.

I respect that you are here not just to argue for argument's sake, and I'm going to try to give this another shot--hopefully a more thorough one this time.

Quote

The reason i can't accept the orthodox position on many issues is simply because i don't accept the visible church. It colours everything i read and makes it impossible to view certain topics any other way.

The church that's being built is a spiritual one. It's all about having the law written on our heart not following the law as the Hebrews used to. It's about what makes a person clean or unclean which is determined by what's in a heart and what flows from a mouth.

I believe the Church to have both visible and invisible elements. My thoughts on this fall into three categories: scriptural, traditional, and philosphical. With regard to the Church being both visible and invisible, this ultimately springs from the relationship of Christians with God. Christians are members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), but there is some type of connection that goes beyond the physical, for St. Paul says that we are not only one body (which could be interpreted as simply being a category) but also "members one of another." (Rom. 12:5) We also are supposed to "have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16), though often this doesn't seem to be the case. As for the visible element of the Church, I think there is actually more evidence for that than for the invisible connection.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, St. Paul wrote to specific groups of people in specific places (ie. local, visible church communities), so that addresses his epistles "To all that be in Rome" (Rom. 1:7), "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), and so forth. Jesus also addresses specific churches in the Apocalypse, such as "the church of Ephesus" (Rev. 2:1), "the church in Smyrna" (Rev. 2:8), and so forth.

This Church, it seems to me, was founded by Jesus Christ, who specifically picked twelve disciples (Matt. 10:1-4; 28:16-20; etc.), and was especially close with three of them in particular (Matt. 17:1-9; 26:37; Mk. 5:37). In Matt. 16 we find him explicitly saying he had a church: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18-19)

A few things about this passage come to mind. First, this was a public (ie. visible) declaration of the founding of a Church. Second, the power to bind and loose was given, this prerogative being again mentioned in Jn. 20:23. I think this "binding and loosing" makes the most sense, exegetically (taking into consideration this whole post), if we assume a visible Church with visible authorities in charge. There is also mention of "gates of hell". The early Church fathers and writers saw in this phrase numerous things, including 1) worldly persecution, 2) heresies and schisms, 3) corporate and widespread sin in the body of Christ, and 4) personal sin in each of us. If these are accurate understandings of the meaning of the passage, I believe a visible Church structure makes the most sense of how this prophecy would work out practically in the life of the Church.

At the beginning of the Church one of the first things the leaders did was replace the fallen Judas (Acts 1:15-26). They later chose seven deacons to minister to the Church (Acts 6:2-6), so they could focus on their mission. And because their work was essentially missionary, and they often did not stay in one place their whole lives, they would appoint leaders for the local Churches to guide the body of Christ. So for example St. Paul says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" (Tit. 1:5; cf 1 Cor. 7:17).

Strikingly, even though St. Paul received his gospel by divine revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), he still felt the need to verify his teachings with the leaders of the Church. He says: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal. 1:18-19) Why just these two? Why not the rest of the Church? And even this was not good enough for St. Paul, for he goes on to say: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." (Gal. 2:1-2) So Paul checked a second time, after doing ministry for years, only with the leaders or those "of reputation," to check and make sure he had not run in vain.

An important early Council was also called (Acts 15) to deal with issues and disturbances, and the leaders of the council seemed to expect their decisions to be followed by the other Christian communities (Acts 15:23-31). Also notice that there were specific leaders--"apostles and elders"--at the Acts 15 council (Acts 15:6-31). This type of guidance was not only from councils, but also on the local parish level, so we find in Hebrews the words: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation... Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Heb. 13:7, 17) Even people who weren't in the Church, but sought truth and salvation, sought guidance, as for example with the Ethiopian eunuch, who when reading the Old Testament was asked by St. Philip: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" and to which he replied: "How can I, except some man should guide me?"

This guidance continued into the early Church, this guidance being protected partly through apostolic succession. It is true that we are all members of the holy temple of Christ (invisibly), and Christ is the chief corner stone, but it is the "apostles and prophets" that are the (visible) foundation (Eph. 2:19-22). So when there was a problem in the Church in Corinth in the late 1st century, St. Clement of Rome advised them that they could not rightly dismiss their leaders since they had done nothing wrong:

Quote

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith...

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.

-- St. Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42-44

St. Ignatius, writing a decade later, was of an even firmer belief about the importance of the visible leadership, saying things like:

Quote

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

-- St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8; cf Epistle to the Magnesians, 6 and Epistle to the Trallians, 3

And St. Ignatius, writing at the end of the 2nd century, said that: "we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times" (Against Heresies, 3, 3); and he further said that: "it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles" (Against Heresies, 4, 26). And for one further reference he says: "True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." (Against Heresies, 4, 33)

Now, as for a philosophical (or epistemological) reasons, St. Vincent of Lerins brought up one when he pointed out that people argue over the meaning of Scripture, and thus we must follow what tradition and the Church teach when there are disputes (Commonitory, 2). The Church, for him as for all the early Christians, was not a do-it-yourself thing, but something done in community--both the local community, and the larger community of the Church wherever it was in the world. Not only do people with no visible Church have to make a subjective judgment on what traditions to consult and follow, and what Church to be a part of and follow, bu they also have to make an arbitrary decision about what books are in the Scripture. They can only hope that God is guiding them, and that those who disagree are simply misled or misunderstanding the will of God.

Quote

If the church were a visible church then it would be easy to tell the wheat from the tares but it isn't easy because we can't see and judge another's heart.

Even though things aren't always clear, we do judge today (1 Cor. 6:4) and will judge even angels (1 Cor. 6:3). Sometimes people are not uprooted, but at other times they are (Tit. 3:10). God knows the end for each of us, and will guide the theanthropic body of Christ to do as it can, should and must for the salvation of our souls.

Quote

It seems to me that only the overview of Orthodoxy is different to Protestantism -- the external dogmatic shell. The internal mess seems remarkably similar to how the rest of Christendom claim to be guided by the Spirit and believe a multitude of different things backed up with the odd patristic quote or two from various denominations jurisdictions.

I don't think this is a fair evaluation of either Orthodox doctrine and dogma, or Orthodox history. Perhaps it seems clear to me just because I went a different route (?). I was a biblical studies major at a Protestant school, and after studying history and theology on my own (I never did get to take many actual theology classes there) I came to the conclusion that God had indeed founded a Church, and that it was visible--and I came to this conclusion not just based on history but also on the witness of Scripture. Eventually I found my way into Orthodoxy... and then in and out and in and out and in... but I think that just makes me better at this kind of post, because I've been there, I've been the devil's advocate, the skeptic, the one arguing against.

I do apologize for the length of this post. I realise people sometimes make long posts as a sort of debate tactic, but that was not my intention here. I just wanted to be as detailed as possible with my thoughts.

Marriage has visible components: companionship and intercourse being two of the more obvious ones. Yet, there are also 'invisible' characteristics: love, caring, sharing, etc.

Some people live 'outward' marriages in that they do the physical stuff but their own inward disposition (or at least one of them) is no longer oriented towards the marriage. However, it is impossible to call a marriage a marriage when the couple refuses to live together, share their material blessings, etc. It becomes something other than marriage.

Now, take this understanding of marriage and apply it to Christ and the Church: you cannot be part of the Body of Christ if you refuse to share in the common life of the Church, just like in marriage. St. Paul's letter reflect a common life of all believers, as does the Gospels. St. Peter splits off over his regret for his denial, but he soon returns. In marriage, their are moments where the bonds are temporarily broken, but restored through repentance. Same is true of the Church: someone may lead a sham life in the Church, but they have the opportunity until the Last Judgment to change.

But, you can't say you have intimacy with those whom you refuse to be with. Our modern world tries to replace intimacy with others by using email, texting, Facebook, IM and many other technologies to replace intimacy. They don't work.

An 'invisible church' is like an 'invisible marriage'... both are impossibilities.

I thought I might put a thought forward even though my education in this is not full. (part of why I enjoy reading on here so much. ) It occurs to me that there is a good quote from 1 Corinthians 1:10 "Now I plead with you, Brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same Judgment."

The Invisible Church has no Divisions for it is full within Christ as he is the Head of that Church. But the Visible Church is spoken of here and we are told to keep no Contentions among us. (in Verse 11 of the same chapter) This could be called part of the main purpose of the Visible Church I think. The visible Church must be "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth." Which when we rely on our own personal Interpretations is very near impossible to achieve because this relies on Human Reasoning which is notoriously Fallible. And the reply, that the Holy Spirit will guide us is not very plausible as a reason because if he Guided each of us with such unerring accuracy there would BE no disagreements among those who stand as their own interpreters. This is how I see the need for the Visible Church, and Holy Tradition.

I thought I might put a thought forward even though my education in this is not full. (part of why I enjoy reading on here so much. ) It occurs to me that there is a good quote from 1 Corinthians 1:10 "Now I plead with you, Brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same Judgment."

The Invisible Church has no Divisions for it is full within Christ as he is the Head of that Church. But the Visible Church is spoken of here and we are told to keep no Contentions among us. (in Verse 11 of the same chapter) This could be called part of the main purpose of the Visible Church I think. The visible Church must be "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth." Which when we rely on our own personal Interpretations is very near impossible to achieve because this relies on Human Reasoning which is notoriously Fallible. And the reply, that the Holy Spirit will guide us is not very plausible as a reason because if he Guided each of us with such unerring accuracy there would BE no disagreements among those who stand as their own interpreters. This is how I see the need for the Visible Church, and Holy Tradition.

This is just my thought in the subject. :p

TD Andreis

I appreciate that. Thankyou. I'm in agreement with you. The bible actually says there 'should' be no division among us. However, there is.

We grow spiritually through reading, more importantly, hearing the Word. This is how the Spirit works. Through His Word.

The reason i can't accept the orthodox position on many issues is simply because i don't accept the visible church. It colours everything i read and makes it impossible to view certain topics any other way.

You say it like that is a bad thing. But, this is precisely a good thing because it protects us from adopting millions of heretical views and twisting the faith to match our own view. If it were not for this guidance then we would not be worshipping the true God our Savior Jesus Christ, but would be worshipping the abstract ultra-personal God of our mind. The issue is whether you accept the authority of the visible Church or not.

Quote

The church that's being built is a spiritual one. It's all about having the law written on our heart not following the law as the Hebrews used to. It's about what makes a person clean or unclean which is determined by what's in a heart and what flows from a mouth.

I'm having a bit trouble understanding you here, but I'll try to respond to where I think you are coming from, since I am actually a recent convert from Protestantism. The Church being built is a spiritual Church, but it is also physical. The issue is that you are dividing the spiritual and the physical, glorifying the spiritual and demonizing the physical. But this is not so. Jesus Christ redeemed both the spiritual and the physical. And, just as Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God yet still one Being, so we believe that the Church is fully physical yet also spiritual. Both have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and are being used to serve Him. The physical aspect of the Church exists because humans are physical creatures, and if we cannot worship God physically then, pardon my french, we are screwed and hopeless because there is no possible way to worship God. I know that many Protestant groups try to avoid this point by saying things like 'Well we can worship Him through our spirit or spiritually' but, when it all comes down to it, how can you do this unless you use your physical aspect? The way we worship God spiritually is through worshipping Him physically. Our physical actions are what helps us build up our spirit, and we can use our physical actions for this purpose because Christ made it possible by becoming physical Himself. Likewise, the 'visible' or 'physical' Church as you put it also serves the function to help a person develop their spirit. The Church builds you up physically and through the process you are built up spiritually as well. Likewise, going to Church means more to us than just a remembrance or act of worship. It is the Spirit and the Physical being united together, both being used to serve God. How is this done you may ask? I have no idea; it is a Mystery like the Eucharist. Also, you said something about having the law written on our hearts and not following it like the Hebrews did. I find that a bit contradicting, what is the point of having the law written on our hearts if we do not practice it? This is like the whole faith vs. works debate all over again. But, my answer to that is my same answer to this. You cannot have one without the other. If you do not have the law written on your heart then you cannot worthily live out the law, and if you cannot live out the law then you do not have it written on your heart.

Quote

So no wonder it's easy for a church who believes themselves to be visible, for them to be able to discern who God has revealed to be made "Saints"...by the guidance of the Spirit of course.

It is even more amazing how a 'Church' that randomly sprang up 1500 years after Jesus Christ think that they can, with the guidance of the Spirit of course, can try to affirm that all Christians up until the 16th century were pagans who worshipped pictures and got everything wrong. I'm sorry if this offends, but as another former Protestant I think I can say this; Protestantism is really mediocre once you convert to Orthodoxy. Converting was the greatest thing that ever happened to me and if I, a dumb 15 year old kid can find God through His true Church, then I see no reason why you cannot either if you are probably smarter and more mature than I am. The truth is that all Churches are visible and make claims, the only difference is that the Orthodox Church can back up its claims with miracles, history and even testimony from the Apostles.

Quote

It seems to me that only the overview of Orthodoxy is different to Protestantism -- the external dogmatic shell.

This is entirely false. First, because you cannot even define Protestantism because there are literally thousands of new odd Protestant denominations popping up every day and they all have different beliefs and practices. Heck, if you go into any Protestant Church and show a Bible passage to each member of the congregation I assure you that each of them will give you a different answer. Whereas if you did the same in an Orthodox Parish, they would all either give you a similar answer, or tell you to see what the Church Fathers said about it. Besides that, Orthodoxy and Protestantism are entirely different! I can think of hundreds of doctrinal differences. Theosis, scripture, negative theology, etc. It goes on and on. The only Protestant denomination even remotely similar to Orthodoxy is traditional Lutheranism and the Methodist Church.

Quote

The internal mess seems remarkably similar to how the rest of Christendom claim to be guided by the Spirit and believe a multitude of different things backed up with the odd patristic quote or two from various denominations jurisdictions.

The difference is that our Church is guided by the Spirit and our sources are legitimate. Just look at history and you will see why. Most Protestants ignore Christian history up till the 16th century. Getting on topic, the one think that stuck out to me right now was your emphasis on the use of the word 'denomination'. You act as if Orthodoxy is a denomination, but, no, we are not. We are the oldest, original Church, we are pre-denominational because denomination implies a change from the original, but we are the very original. We have nothing to prove' you are the one who has something to prove because the Protestants are the ones who advocated change.

I have to say I think if just reading and hearing were the case then historical facts would line up very differently. Why would people die in acts if the rituals were just that or symbols? I think part of the measure here has to come from history. The apostles started a church, a physical one whilst being members of a spiritual church. Maybe I'm missing the point (as I think I may be) but it seems to me much of the debate here would be much simpler with a measuring stick grounded in history. Preferably secular history.

I have to say I think if just reading and hearing were the case then historical facts would line up very differently. Why would people die in acts if the rituals were just that or symbols? I think part of the measure here has to come from history. The apostles started a church, a physical one whilst being members of a spiritual church. Maybe I'm missing the point (as I think I may be) but it seems to me much of the debate here would be much simpler with a measuring stick grounded in history. Preferably secular history.

I have to say I think if just reading and hearing were the case then historical facts would line up very differently. Why would people die in acts if the rituals were just that or symbols? I think part of the measure here has to come from history. The apostles started a church, a physical one whilst being members of a spiritual church. Maybe I'm missing the point (as I think I may be) but it seems to me much of the debate here would be much simpler with a measuring stick grounded in history. Preferably secular history.

I have to say I think if just reading and hearing were the case then historical facts would line up very differently. Why would people die in acts if the rituals were just that or symbols? I think part of the measure here has to come from history. The apostles started a church, a physical one whilst being members of a spiritual church. Maybe I'm missing the point (as I think I may be) but it seems to me much of the debate here would be much simpler with a measuring stick grounded in history. Preferably secular history.

TD Andreis

Let me guess. The Orthodox church?

Did you have anywhere else in mind? We're open to suggestions

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

With regard to the Church being both visible and invisible, this ultimately springs from the relationship of Christians with God.

I think it more accurately 'springs' from the fact that we are not of this world but we are in the world

Quote

Christians are members of the body of Christ but there is some type of connection that goes beyond the physical,

There is not "some type of connection" at all. We are spiritual beings in earthly bodies, we are not of the world, it's not just a "connection".John 15:19 -- If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Quote

for St. Paul says that we are not only one body (which could be interpreted as simply being a category) but also "members one of another." (Rom. 12:5) We also are supposed to "have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16), though often this doesn't seem to be the case. As for the visible element of the Church, I think there is actually more evidence for that than for the invisible connection.

More evidence for a visible body than for the "invisible connection"? I don't agree.

Quote

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, St. Paul wrote to specific groups of people in specific places (ie. local, visible church communities),

Yes, churches that met regularly together in each others' houses.

Quote

so that addresses his epistles "To all that be in Rome" (Rom. 1:7), "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), and so forth. Jesus also addresses specific churches in the Apocalypse, such as "the church of Ephesus" (Rev. 2:1), "the church in Smyrna" (Rev. 2:, and so forth.

Many visible churches but one Church (invisible); one body.

Quote

This Church, it seems to me, was founded by Jesus Christ, who specifically picked twelve disciples (Matt. 10:1-4; 28:16-20; etc.), and was especially close with three of them in particular (Matt. 17:1-9; 26:37; Mk. 5:37). In Matt. 16 we find him explicitly saying he had a church: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18-19)

And where is Peter's church today?

Quote

A few things about this passage come to mind. First, this was a public (ie. visible) declaration of the founding of a Church. Second, the power to bind and loose was given, this prerogative being again mentioned in Jn. 20:23. I think this "binding and loosing" makes the most sense, exegetically (taking into consideration this whole post), if we assume a visible Church with visible authorities in charge.

Of course. No one's saying the visible aspects of church aren't important.

Quote

There is also mention of "gates of hell". The early Church fathers and writers saw in this phrase numerous things, including 1) worldly persecution, 2) heresies and schisms, 3) corporate and widespread sin in the body of Christ, and 4) personal sin in each of us. If these are accurate understandings of the meaning of the passage, I believe a visible Church structure makes the most sense of how this prophecy would work out practically in the life of the Church.

You're missing the depth in your overall 4 point assesement.

Ephesians 6:4 -- "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

This is what fuels "wordly persecution...heresies and schisms...corporate and widespread sin in the body of Christ" and "personal sin in each of us". Therefore the root of the visible "gates of hell" are somewhat invisible.

Quote

At the beginning of the Church one of the first things the leaders did was replace the fallen Judas (Acts 1:15-26). They later chose seven deacons to minister to the Church (Acts 6:2-6), so they could focus on their mission. And because their work was essentially missionary, and they often did not stay in one place their whole lives, they would appoint leaders for the local Churches to guide the body of Christ. So for example St. Paul says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" (Tit. 1:5; cf 1 Cor. 7:17).

Strikingly, even though St. Paul received his gospel by divine revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), he still felt the need to verify his teachings with the leaders of the Church. He says: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal. 1:18-19) Why just these two? Why not the rest of the Church? And even this was not good enough for St. Paul, for he goes on to say: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." (Gal. 2:1-2) So Paul checked a second time, after doing ministry for years, only with the leaders or those "of reputation," to check and make sure he had not run in vain.

An important early Council was also called (Acts 15) to deal with issues and disturbances, and the leaders of the council seemed to expect their decisions to be followed by the other Christian communities (Acts 15:23-31). Also notice that there were specific leaders--"apostles and elders"--at the Acts 15 council (Acts 15:6-31). This type of guidance was not only from councils, but also on the local parish level, so we find in Hebrews the words: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation... Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Heb. 13:7, 17) Even people who weren't in the Church, but sought truth and salvation, sought guidance, as for example with the Ethiopian eunuch, who when reading the Old Testament was asked by St. Philip: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" and to which he replied: "How can I, except some man should guide me?"

People, who need saving, live on earth. The Great Commission is about going out into the world and taking the good news into the communities of this dark world to be a light. All that would be regarded as visible aspects of the church. All of that would need a community to accomplish it and to be accountable to one another while doing so.

Quote

Now, as for a philosophical (or epistemological) reasons, St. Vincent of Lerins brought up one when he pointed out that people argue over the meaning of Scripture, and thus we must follow what tradition and the Church teach when there are disputes (Commonitory, 2). The Church, for him as for all the early Christians, was not a do-it-yourself thing, but something done in community--both the local community, and the larger community of the Church wherever it was in the world.

This is where we outwork our faith in local visible church and community.

Quote

Not only do people with no visible Church have to make a subjective judgment on what traditions to consult and follow, and what Church to be a part of and follow, but they also have to make an arbitrary decision about what books are in the Scripture.

They would have had to do that during the schism and again when heresies arise later. When several people in authority assert one position and many others in authority assert another, the individuals have to make a decision being guided by the Holy Spirit of course, as to which persons in authority are correct. No church leaders are infallible, which you would agree and when you have a split in the church over an issue, individuals are forced to make a decision.

Quote

Even though things aren't always clear, we do judge today (1 Cor. 6:4) and will judge even angels (1 Cor. 6:3). Sometimes people are not uprooted, but at other times they are (Tit. 3:10). God knows the end for each of us, and will guide the theanthropic body of Christ to do as it can, should and must for the salvation of our souls.

We can do nothing to add to the salvation of our souls that Christ has not already done for us.

Quote

I don't think this is a fair evaluation of either Orthodox doctrine and dogma, or Orthodox history. Perhaps it seems clear to me just because I went a different route (?). I was a biblical studies major at a Protestant school, and after studying history and theology on my own (I never did get to take many actual theology classes there) I came to the conclusion that God had indeed founded a Church, and that it was visible--and I came to this conclusion not just based on history but also on the witness of Scripture. Eventually I found my way into Orthodoxy... and then in and out and in and out and in... but I think that just makes me better at this kind of post, because I've been there, I've been the devil's advocate, the skeptic, the one arguing against.

Thanks for sharing your experiences and opinions.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

With regard to the Church being both visible and invisible, this ultimately springs from the relationship of Christians with God.

I think it more accurately 'springs' from the fact that we are not of this world but we are in the world

Quote

Christians are members of the body of Christ but there is some type of connection that goes beyond the physical,

There is not "some type of connection" at all. We are spiritual beings in earthly bodies, we are not of the world, it's not just a "connection".John 15:19 -- If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Quote

for St. Paul says that we are not only one body (which could be interpreted as simply being a category) but also "members one of another." (Rom. 12:5) We also are supposed to "have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16), though often this doesn't seem to be the case. As for the visible element of the Church, I think there is actually more evidence for that than for the invisible connection.

More evidence for a visible body than for the "invisible connection"? I don't agree.

Quote

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, St. Paul wrote to specific groups of people in specific places (ie. local, visible church communities),

Yes, churches that met regularly together in each others' houses.

Quote

so that addresses his epistles "To all that be in Rome" (Rom. 1:7), "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), and so forth. Jesus also addresses specific churches in the Apocalypse, such as "the church of Ephesus" (Rev. 2:1), "the church in Smyrna" (Rev. 2:, and so forth.

Many visible churches but one Church (invisible); one body.

Quote

This Church, it seems to me, was founded by Jesus Christ, who specifically picked twelve disciples (Matt. 10:1-4; 28:16-20; etc.), and was especially close with three of them in particular (Matt. 17:1-9; 26:37; Mk. 5:37). In Matt. 16 we find him explicitly saying he had a church: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18-19)

And where is Peter's church today?

Quote

A few things about this passage come to mind. First, this was a public (ie. visible) declaration of the founding of a Church. Second, the power to bind and loose was given, this prerogative being again mentioned in Jn. 20:23. I think this "binding and loosing" makes the most sense, exegetically (taking into consideration this whole post), if we assume a visible Church with visible authorities in charge.

Of course. No one's saying the visible aspects of church aren't important.

Quote

There is also mention of "gates of hell". The early Church fathers and writers saw in this phrase numerous things, including 1) worldly persecution, 2) heresies and schisms, 3) corporate and widespread sin in the body of Christ, and 4) personal sin in each of us. If these are accurate understandings of the meaning of the passage, I believe a visible Church structure makes the most sense of how this prophecy would work out practically in the life of the Church.

You're missing the depth in your overall 4 point assesement.

Ephesians 6:4 -- "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

This is what fuels "wordly persecution...heresies and schisms...corporate and widespread sin in the body of Christ" and "personal sin in each of us". Therefore the root of the visible "gates of hell" are somewhat invisible.

Quote

At the beginning of the Church one of the first things the leaders did was replace the fallen Judas (Acts 1:15-26). They later chose seven deacons to minister to the Church (Acts 6:2-6), so they could focus on their mission. And because their work was essentially missionary, and they often did not stay in one place their whole lives, they would appoint leaders for the local Churches to guide the body of Christ. So for example St. Paul says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" (Tit. 1:5; cf 1 Cor. 7:17).

Strikingly, even though St. Paul received his gospel by divine revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), he still felt the need to verify his teachings with the leaders of the Church. He says: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal. 1:18-19) Why just these two? Why not the rest of the Church? And even this was not good enough for St. Paul, for he goes on to say: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." (Gal. 2:1-2) So Paul checked a second time, after doing ministry for years, only with the leaders or those "of reputation," to check and make sure he had not run in vain.

An important early Council was also called (Acts 15) to deal with issues and disturbances, and the leaders of the council seemed to expect their decisions to be followed by the other Christian communities (Acts 15:23-31). Also notice that there were specific leaders--"apostles and elders"--at the Acts 15 council (Acts 15:6-31). This type of guidance was not only from councils, but also on the local parish level, so we find in Hebrews the words: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation... Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Heb. 13:7, 17) Even people who weren't in the Church, but sought truth and salvation, sought guidance, as for example with the Ethiopian eunuch, who when reading the Old Testament was asked by St. Philip: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" and to which he replied: "How can I, except some man should guide me?"

People, who need saving, live on earth. The Great Commission is about going out into the world and taking the good news into the communities of this dark world to be a light. All that would be regarded as visible aspects of the church. All of that would need a community to accomplish it and to be accountable to one another while doing so.

Quote

Now, as for a philosophical (or epistemological) reasons, St. Vincent of Lerins brought up one when he pointed out that people argue over the meaning of Scripture, and thus we must follow what tradition and the Church teach when there are disputes (Commonitory, 2). The Church, for him as for all the early Christians, was not a do-it-yourself thing, but something done in community--both the local community, and the larger community of the Church wherever it was in the world.

This is where we outwork our faith in local visible church and community.

Quote

Not only do people with no visible Church have to make a subjective judgment on what traditions to consult and follow, and what Church to be a part of and follow, but they also have to make an arbitrary decision about what books are in the Scripture.

They would have had to do that during the schism and again when heresies arise later. When several people in authority assert one position and many others in authority assert another, the individuals have to make a decision being guided by the Holy Spirit of course, as to which persons in authority are correct. No church leaders are infallible, which you would agree and when you have a split in the church over an issue, individuals are forced to make a decision.

Quote

Even though things aren't always clear, we do judge today (1 Cor. 6:4) and will judge even angels (1 Cor. 6:3). Sometimes people are not uprooted, but at other times they are (Tit. 3:10). God knows the end for each of us, and will guide the theanthropic body of Christ to do as it can, should and must for the salvation of our souls.

We can do nothing to add to the salvation of our souls that Christ has not already done for us.

Quote

I don't think this is a fair evaluation of either Orthodox doctrine and dogma, or Orthodox history. Perhaps it seems clear to me just because I went a different route (?). I was a biblical studies major at a Protestant school, and after studying history and theology on my own (I never did get to take many actual theology classes there) I came to the conclusion that God had indeed founded a Church, and that it was visible--and I came to this conclusion not just based on history but also on the witness of Scripture. Eventually I found my way into Orthodoxy... and then in and out and in and out and in... but I think that just makes me better at this kind of post, because I've been there, I've been the devil's advocate, the skeptic, the one arguing against.

Thanks for sharing your experiences and opinions.

There is not "some type of connection" at all. We are spiritual beings in earthly bodies,

Buzzzt... Heresy alert !

Jesus Christ was FULLY Human and FULLY Divine both at the same time. Right?... We too are fully human physical beings. It is an error to think of the body as a cast off husk and the "Real you" 100% spiritual. We save the entire being in Christianity, body and soul.

To say "We are not of this World" does not mean our body is not real or secondary. It means we are not concerned too much with the things of this World and have as our goal eternal salvation.

You are staying consistent with my observation. Everything is a metaphor, a symbol an idea or a Principle. Nothing is concrete or an actually existing manifestation. Our bodies are not the True Person, the Church is "really" invisible. The Eucharist is a mere symbolic memorial.. on and on.

This is what can happen when you discard the teaching authority of The Church and try to interpret scripture all on your lonesome. One error leads to the next.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

There is not "some type of connection" at all. We are spiritual beings in earthly bodies

Gnostics, party of 1, your table would be ready, but it doesn't really exist......

PP

If you want to see what this can lead to look no further than Christian "Science" and the musings of Mary Baker Eddie.

We are "really" perfect Spiritual Beings. Sickness is an error and not what God intended for us. Therefore , if you say to yourself this wound or illness is an error, I am really a Spiritual Being, it will go away.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

There is not "some type of connection" at all. We are spiritual beings in earthly bodies

Gnostics, party of 1, your table would be ready, but it doesn't really exist......

PP

If you want to see what this can lead to look no further than Christian "Science" and the musings of Mary Baker Eddie.

We are "really" perfect Spiritual Beings. Sickness is an error and not what God intended for us. Therefore , if you say to yourself this wound or illness is an error, I am really a Spiritual Being, it will go away.

Yeah, Chrstian "Science" would be laughable if so many didn't follow that madwoman into their doom. Absolute nonsense. BUT when you cast aside authority, you get 30,000 denominations I s'pose....

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Marriage has visible components: companionship and intercourse being two of the more obvious ones. Yet, there are also 'invisible' characteristics: love, caring, sharing, etc.

Some people live 'outward' marriages in that they do the physical stuff but their own inward disposition (or at least one of them) is no longer oriented towards the marriage. However, it is impossible to call a marriage a marriage when the couple refuses to live together, share their material blessings, etc. It becomes something other than marriage.

Now, take this understanding of marriage and apply it to Christ and the Church: you cannot be part of the Body of Christ if you refuse to share in the common life of the Church, just like in marriage.

Agreed.

Quote

St. Paul's letter reflect a common life of all believers, as does the Gospels. St. Peter splits off over his regret for his denial, but he soon returns. In marriage, their are moments where the bonds are temporarily broken, but restored through repentance. Same is true of the Church: someone may lead a sham life in the Church, but they have the opportunity until the Last Judgment to change.

Agreed.

Quote

But, you can't say you have intimacy with those whom you refuse to be with.

This presents a difficult dilemma because, even though the church outwork their faith in relationships with each other and under accountability and authority (to a degree) of a local visible body, there are times, as you rightly say, that those relationships will be called into question when the truth is at stake.

Quote

Our modern world tries to replace intimacy with others by using email, texting, Facebook, IM and many other technologies to replace intimacy. They don't work.

I agreed. Technology is great but not as a replacement for face to face contact and knowing each other rather than merely knowing information about each other.

Quote

An 'invisible church' is like an 'invisible marriage'... both are impossibilities.

If it is only God that knows who it is He is coming back for, then the ultimate nature of the church is invisible. Surely: it is only by The Spirit that we walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7), He who guides our every thought, word and deed; it's only by faith can we enter; it's only those who are lead by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom.8:14); it's only in Christ Jesus, faith (invisible) working through love as neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (visible) matters at all?

« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 09:11:16 AM by FountainPen »

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

If it is only God that knows who it is He is coming back for, then the ultimate nature of the church is invisible.

Erroneous conclusion. God will save whomever he will save. He can save within what has been reveled to us or he can save someone outside of it as an exception. That does not make The Church Invisible. The Lord clearly established his Church upon Peter's confession of faith. He promised that even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. The Church established itself in a visible manner, became organized and as we read in Scripture acted in a concrete and visible manner.

He didnt say:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build an idea, and the gates of hell may or may not prevail against it.

Once again I ask you. When did all that change? When was Scripture rendered moot? When did that organization that we clearly and without question know existed, no longer exist? Do you have a date?

Surely: it is only by The Spirit that we walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7), He who guides our every thought, word and deed; it's only by faith can we enter; it's only those who are lead by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom.8:14); it's only in Christ Jesus, faith (invisible) working through love as neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (visible) matters at all?

Faith is not a mere "idea". The Church is also not merely an "Idea". God incarnated in a real way into the World. We even celebrated it as a big holiday recently. Why would the incarnation be real and everything else merely be a thought or a notion?

« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 11:26:40 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Erroneous conclusion. God will save whomever he will save. He can save within what has been reveled to us or he can save someone outside of it as an exception. That does not make The Church Invisible. The Lord clearly established his Church upon Peter's confession of faith. He promised that even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. The Church established itself in a visible manner, became organized and as we read in Scripture acted in a concrete and visible manner.

He didnt say:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build an idea, and the gates of hell may or may not prevail against it.

That was part of a wider question/statement to Father Giryus which you've chopped up.

Quote

Once again I ask you. When did all that change? When was Scripture rendered moot? When did that organization that we clearly and without question know existed, no longer exist? Do you have a date?

And once again forgive me if i won't engage with you.

Quote

Faith is not a mere "idea". The Church is also not merely an "Idea". God incarnated in a real way into the World. We even celebrated it as a big holiday recently. Why would the incarnation be real and everything else merely be a thought or a notion?

Where exactly did i use the word "idea" or suggest that it was some kind of idea? I'll answer for you, i didn't.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 01:44:42 PM by FountainPen »

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

QuoteOnce again I ask you. When did all that change? When was Scripture rendered moot? When did that organization that we clearly and without question know existed, no longer exist? Do you have a date?And once again forgive me if i won't engage with you.

But it is a valid question.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

QuoteOnce again I ask you. When did all that change? When was Scripture rendered moot? When did that organization that we clearly and without question know existed, no longer exist? Do you have a date?

But it is a valid question.

PP

I've already said several times we're not talking about separate churches, it's all one church.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

QuoteOnce again I ask you. When did all that change? When was Scripture rendered moot? When did that organization that we clearly and without question know existed, no longer exist? Do you have a date?

But it is a valid question.

PP

I've already said several times we're not talking about separate churches, it's all one church.

I think what Marc is talking about is that in your statements (and I could be wrong) but it is almost as if you believe that the invisible church takes precedence over the visible church.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

If it is only God that knows who it is He is coming back for, then the ultimate nature of the church is invisible. Surely: it is only by The Spirit that we walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7), He who guides our every thought, word and deed; it's only by faith can we enter; it's only those who are lead by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom.8:14); it's only in Christ Jesus, faith (invisible) working through love as neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (visible) matters at all? [/size]

You are correct in that only Christ knows who is saved and who is not saved. However, consider the following verses from the Gospel of James, 2:14-26:

Quote

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

It is not enough for us to have faith, we also must carry out Christ's commandments to love one another and to partake of the sacraments. That is the "works" part of being a Christian. We cannot do the "works" part on our own. You can't "love one another" by yourself. You can't partake of the sacraments by yourself.

The first line of your post, although you don't quote it, essentially refers to Matthew 25:31-32

Quote

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

However, if you keep reading, it goes on to tell us how we are to "love one another":

Quote

And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

In terms of the sacraments, Christ commands us in the following verses:

Matthew 28:18-20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Matthew 26:25-28: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

John 6:25-69 (I'm providing the link, since it's such a lengthy quote.)

These things can only be accomplished in a real, physical Church.

However, the Orthodox Church does not just see herself as a physical Church, but a spiritual one as well. Every time Divine Liturgy is served, it is not just the communion of the believers present in the physical building that join in worship, but the communion of the saints, the believers who have passed on before us who join us in worship and truth. So the Church is both physical and spiritual.

I hope this makes sense.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 02:23:47 PM by HandmaidenofGod »

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

QuoteOnce again I ask you. When did all that change? When was Scripture rendered moot? When did that organization that we clearly and without question know existed, no longer exist? Do you have a date?

But it is a valid question.

PP

I've already said several times we're not talking about separate churches, it's all one church.

I think what Marc is talking about is that in your statements (and I could be wrong) but it is almost as if you believe that the invisible church takes precedence over the visible church.

PP

No more than the Orthodox church with her visible sacraments and rituals would allow them to take precedence over the invisible nature of the church.

Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain

QuoteOnce again I ask you. When did all that change? When was Scripture rendered moot? When did that organization that we clearly and without question know existed, no longer exist? Do you have a date?

But it is a valid question.

PP

I've already said several times we're not talking about separate churches, it's all one church.

I think what Marc is talking about is that in your statements (and I could be wrong) but it is almost as if you believe that the invisible church takes precedence over the visible church.

PP

No more than the Orthodox church with her visible sacraments and rituals would allow them to take precedence over the invisible nature of the church.

That is your perception. Part of the reason we have icons in our Church is to remind us of the Communion of Saints and the invisible bodies that surround us.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11